Walker v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · Segall v. Segall · 973 So. 2d 580 - Roth v. Roth · 771 So. 2d 1138 - Mallard v. Mallard · Moore v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order to determine that a spouse has dissipated marital assets, the trial court must make “a specific finding of intentional misconduct based on evidence showing that the marital funds were used for one party’s ‘own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.’ ” Belford v. Belford, 51 So.3d 1259, 1260-61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (quoting Roth v. Roth, 973 So.2d 580, 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). “Misconduct is not shown by ‘mismanagement or simple squandering of marital assets in a manner of which the other spouse disapproves.’"” Id. (quoting Roth, 973 So.2d at 585 (stating there “must be evidence of spending spouse’s intentional dissipation or destruction of the asset”)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.